Question
In Uganda there is a congregation when I was institutional I used mission funds to build a church building. They grew where they appointed 2 men as elders then added a 3rd. The elders were worried about the children attending denominational schools and being influenced with instruments and false teaching so they used the mud and stick and new building for a school. Later individuals sent funds to build temporary classrooms. The school is supported by individuals and fees from parents. No church funds were used with this. The children have chapel when school is in session thus the elders see it as protecting the children from false teaching. They also have converted some through this. There are no utilities so no church money tied to the school. But the elders feel they are as shepherds protecting the flock and feeding the sheep through church and education. Is this wrong among noninstitutional congregations? They don’t try to force other congregations to do this. Give scripture to support conclusions please.
Answer
I appreciate the good question.
I commend these brethren for their determination to see that the children are properly taught. The question is not sufficiently clear, so far as the circumstances, for me to be sure what transpired and is transpiring. I’ll answer it the best I can in the light of how it seems to read to me.
First, it is indeed scriptural for an organization other than the local church to teach the Bible. In fact, any organization may provide for teaching the truth of God’s word. The family has oversight (Ephesians 5:22-24; 6:1), pooled resources (1 Timothy 5:8), and a common work to be done (Ephesians 6:4); thus, it is an organization in the same sense the local church is (1 Peter 5:1-2; Acts 4:34-35; 1 Timothy 5:16). The father, as head of the family, is obligated to teach the children the word of God (Ephesians 6:4), and his wife is his helper (Genesis 2:18-24). Civil government, an organization, can provide for the teaching of the Scriptures (Acts 24:23-26; 25:13 – 26:29; 28:16-21). When I lived in New York I taught a weekly Bible class in the Jefferson County Correctional Facility [jail] by permission of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department. The Jefferson County Sheriff’s department provided the place [a room in the county jail], and regulated the studies [time, number of prisoners, etc.]). I did the same in Arkansas two years ago in a state prison. Thus, any organization, including a school, may provide Bible teaching.
Whenever the church makes a donation, whatever or whomever receives the donation, enters into fellowship with the church (2 Corinthians 8:1-4; Philippians 4:15-16). The word “shared”
(NKJV, Philippians 4:15) is a translation of the Greek term “koinoneo,” meaning “to come into communion or fellowship with” (Thayer). Fellowship is the only tie there is in Christ (1 John 1:7). If the church donated the material to build a school building, it entered into fellowship with the school, making the school a quasi-church institution.
There may be other problems with the way these brethren are proceeding. First the only organization elders, in their capacity as elders, oversee, is the local church (1 Peter 5:1-4). If they assumed the oversight of a school in their capacity as elders, they have made this a work of the church, whether church funds are used or not. There is no scriptural authority for the church to provide secular education. The church is to teach the truth of the Scriptures (1 Timothy 3:14-15; 2 Timothy 3:14-15). I would not object to churches teaching children or adults to read and sing, since these skills help edify them to serve the Lord (Ephesians 4:11-16; 5:18-19). But other secular subjects, such as mathematics, government, and secular history, have no role in edification.
My suggestion is that the elders allow the parents to choose someone or group of people to run the school, turn it over to them, and completely separate the school from the church. If this is what they are doing, I commend them.
